 | | Re: Deep links (was Re: Phil and Dixie [ (c) Phil Foglio ] Mosaic
|
|
(...) Hmm, a cool feature for BrickShelf which shouldn't be hard. Have a button visible to the owner of a folder which brings you to a page which just provides clickable deep links for that folder, like: <A HREF="(2 URLs)<BR> You could also view the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Deep links (was Re: Phil and Dixie [ (c) Phil Foglio ] Mosaic
|
|
(...) as the folder reference does, and will until the folder is moderated. In general you (as the originator of the image) need to click on links of this form and post the result of THAT. You can tell a deep link because it has the actual file name (...) (22 years ago, 20-Nov-02, to lugnet.build, lugnet.publish, lugnet.general, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Brickshelf slow for anyone else lately?
|
|
I agree, it is slower. I think it would probably be a big help if Kevin would limit the sizes of images uploaded. Perhaps they could just be automatically resized to no bigger than 640x480, the way the thumbnails are generated. (If the larger image (...) (22 years ago, 16-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Picture size
|
|
(...) Anything in excess of 640x480 is too big for most users. Screen size is not the only issue - consider also bandwidth. The file size grows exponentially as an image grows. (Twice the width = 4 times the size, 3x width = 9x size, etc.) (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Picture size
|
|
(...) Agree, agree, agree, and agree. Just thought I'd put in that the only other concievable reason I could think of for pictures in excess of 800x600 would be for printing/photoediting purposes. But since that only occurrs once in a blue moon (IE (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Picture size
|
|
(...) I go for 800x600 or smaller generally. Sometimes a large picture is worthwhile, but if you are including the pictures in-line in a website, you might want to have a smaller picture with a link to the big one. Cropping is one of the best ways (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Picture size
|
|
(...) I typically do 640x480 or smaller, with a fairly heavy jpeg compression (usually 30 to 50%) so my images fall in the 30-60K range. I prefer to keep them a little smaller and sacrifice a little bit of quality, then have them over 80K and chew (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Picture size
|
|
(...) I think you can show good detail with an image of 80 to 120 KB, but it depends on the picture. Some look better/worse than others. On my website, I limit my big, detailed pics to 120 KB max. That's just my preference. TJ p.s. I use dial-up :-( (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Picture size
|
|
What do you think is a good balace between file size (speed) and largest display (detail) of a jpeg photo on a website? Jude (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: All your Microscale Moonbase are belong to Us.
|
|
(...) Hey! WOW! Thanks, Bill! I didn't know you could do that! I'll try to do it from now on, though, with the most representative pic for a sneak peek. I appreciate the helpful hint, and may wander over toward .publish to browse for other good (...) (22 years ago, 2-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
